Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher?


Pathfinder Society

451 to 500 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:

I'll admit that I've only been playing PF for a little over a year after a considerable break from the world of tabletop RPGs. However, I've never seen this sort of dire situation. I have seen cases where one character that has 2+ levels on the others does save everyone's butt (usually in level 1-5 scenarios), but that's due to level difference rather than optimization.

Rather than observing OP characters as being needed for the rare situation described above, I've generally seen them trivializing encounters or overshadowing the efforts of other, often newer, players.

To the degree that nerfing helps reduce the number of OP characters and discourages obsessive optimization, I think that's overall a good thing for PFS in general.

I believe that what BNW is saying is that there are different expectation sin PFS (or really any sort of Organized play) where 3-7 completely random characters could all get sat together to play versus the more traditional table of players that commonly play together.

It's not that PFS requires/expects characters to be more "OP", but rather it is significantly better for everyone if each player puts some effort into being able to cover potential gaps in the party, should none of those random players happen to have, say an Arcane Caster.

Not that they need to be both a Barbarian and also be so good that they are basically a Wizard also, but that they devote a little bit to maybe having some Int or ability to use wands/scrolls themselves, just in case.

Similarly, a table that just happens to have 4 Wizards might have a really hard time if none of them can survive a few good hits, and at least one of them might have to bite the bullet, so to speak, and keep enemies off of the others long enough for them to cast a few offensive spells without getting killed for doing so.

In a home game, for instance, you already know you have a Barbarian, Sorcerer, Oracle, and a Bard, and it will not take long to figure out it's most likely going to be either the Sorcerer or the Barbarian "dealing" with traps and locks. You also know that you could take a level of Rogue, and overall it will not be wasted, because you can talk to the other players about it.

In PFS, your next game might be with a completely different set up, though. (Or it may not).

Liberty's Edge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:

I'll admit that I've only been playing PF for a little over a year after a considerable break from the world of tabletop RPGs. However, I've never seen this sort of dire situation. I have seen cases where one character that has 2+ levels on the others does save everyone's butt (usually in level 1-5 scenarios), but that's due to level difference rather than optimization.

Rather than observing OP characters as being needed for the rare situation described above, I've generally seen them trivializing encounters or overshadowing the efforts of other, often newer, players.

To the degree that nerfing helps reduce the number of OP characters and discourages obsessive optimization, I think that's overall a good thing for PFS in general.

Well, I can't speak to others experiences, but my first 3 characters for PFS were relatively un-optimized, not wanting to step on other players toes. After -2 and -3 both took permanent dirt naps while playing in groups where they got no support I stopped caring so much about stepping on toes. And it goes the other way too, if you're not bringing a sufficiently useful/powerful character, you're likely adversely affecting other players experience. I distinctly remember a heated table where 2 players essentially soloed (co-oped?) the entire scenario with 5 players seated. Best line was "What do you mean you have a -3 to hit? You're level 5! How is that even possible!?".

I can't say that these situations are as common, but they do happen. I definitely don't begrudge anyone for building a powerful character because they don't want a couple of bad teammates to be the end of their character. I will begrudge someone if they're smug about it, or rubbing it in other peoples faces. But I don't see that very often (or at all). What I see more of is players with poorly built characters complaining that they didn't have a moment to shine, whether they were legitimately denied the opportunity to do so or not.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:

Rather than observing OP characters as being needed for the rare situation described above, I've generally seen them trivializing encounters or overshadowing the efforts of other, often newer, players.

To the degree that nerfing helps reduce the number of OP characters and discourages obsessive optimization, I think that's overall a good thing for PFS in general.

Okay, but which of these nerfs has achieved that? Which has even been a move in that direction?

Thats what changes the attitude from annoyed to frothing at the mouth. The actions are entirely arbitrary if thats the goal, and you're telling people with mid level optimization that they're dirty cheating power gamers but the gunslinger is just fine.

2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Okay, but which of these nerfs has achieved that? Which has even been a move in that direction?

Thats what changes the attitude from annoyed to frothing at the mouth. The actions are entirely arbitrary if thats the goal, and you're telling people with mid level optimization that they're dirty cheating power gamers but the gunslinger is just fine.

I believe the nerfing of the clear spindle ioun stone resonant power is one example of the move in that direction (and one of my PCs will take this hit, which is fine with me). I'd certainly be happy to see more. Zen archers are my current bete noire.*

And I'd agree that it does seem to be a very slow motion process, and I can understand how this can give rise to frustration.

*Semi-related question - Are there any PFS scenarios where the PCs face enemy zen archers?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is not slow motion. It is slaad level random motion.

Liberty's Edge

Nerfing ALWAYS create frustration. Hopefully sometimes it can help achieve balance

The key deciding factor always should be how many people will leave PFS in part because of this change and how many will join it and/or stay in part thanks to this change

A second factor might be the relative buying potential of those two crowds

Liberty's Edge

captain yesterday wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Yeah, the Vigilante playtest burnt that bridge to the f+$+ing ground and then some -_-
??? Don't have to respond in the thread, but I am curious to hear other opinions on this?

It was taken over by theory crafters who verbally abused anyone with a dissenting opinion or who actually play tested it (including the design team).

Edit: And please don't think of it as a dig against theory crafting, it is not, this particular group was the issue, not theory crafting.

The Vigilante playtest incident is the easy obvious culprit here but it does not explain the ending of RPGSS. And IIRC previous playtests also got their heavy share of vitriol

I think the move away from public participation has deeper roots

5/5 5/55/55/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Nerfing ALWAYS create frustration. Hopefully sometimes it can help achieve balance

There is no hope for this if, when looking at the myriad of options in the game, the most overpowered thing sticking up above the rest is the lore warden.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

A bit late to the party, but I wouldn't mind bringing back Aasimars/Tieflings to the general populace (personally banked one of each but haven't gotten around to actually making either; it's really more about the "principle" than anything else), Wouldn't really mind for either Lore Wardens from both sources to be legal (Adventurer's Guide) and remain legal (Seeker of Secrets) as some sort of test run, and I definitely would be against removing any formerly opened (campaign guide wise only; chronicle rewards and boons- perhaps penalties if there's really such a market for them- are just that) race choices for any "reasons". ;)

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is no hope for this if, when looking at the myriad of options in the game, the most overpowered thing sticking up above the rest is the lore warden.

(Disclaimer: I do not have specific knowledge of the process. This is simply a semi-educated determination.)

This is, I think, the biggest misconception I see throughout all of this. Almost everyone seems to speak as if the developers said "Okay, we're going to set aside page space in here to nerf one single overpowered thing. Lore warden it is!"

A far more likely series of events:

- let's make a book
- let's make it about various organizations + collect scattered material + put it on the PRD
- what organizations?
- Pathfinder Society is a big one
- what Pathfinder Society material isn't in a hardcover yet? Pathfinder Society Field Guide
- what material in there should be reprinted?
- lore warden is simple, popular, and thematic
- while we're reprinting this, let's update it to be in line with the expectations of the RPG line

Same result, I suppose... but different motivation, and less reason for "why not other more-overpowered thing?" Book first, result second. (This also explains why it didn't happen sooner: they didn't have a reason for reprinting the lore warden sooner.)

Anyway... just something I've been thinking about for a while. Normal conversation may now resume. *re-hides thread*

Liberty's Edge

Too bad that the last event in the series destroyed the next to last, at least as far as popular is concerned (and thematic is not such a good quality if it is not popular)

So, in the process that K wrote down, popular should actually be a reason NOT to include a piece of material for revision unless it is also unbalanced. I propose to replace it with "popular because it is unbalanced"

And balance should then be considered under the prism of "will many people still want to use the revised piece of material ?"

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Kalindlara wrote:
This is, I think, the biggest misconception I see throughout all of this. Almost everyone seems to speak as if the developers said "Okay, we're going to set aside page space in here to nerf one single overpowered thing. Lore warden it is!"

While I feel like it wasn't done simply to nerf the option, but bring it more in line with other similar options, that seems to be exactly what happened with Fencing Grace being included in Ultimate Intrigue. It's not a compendium style book like ultimate equipment or the adventurers guide, so there really wasn't much reason to include it except to have the wording of the feat changed. So, while I don't believe that the intention was to specifically include the Lore Warden for the purposes of reworking the archetype, there's enough precedent to see why player might assume that. And I can also see why the lackluster rewrite wouldn't engender any good will from those who already assume the inclusion was specifically intended to nerf the option.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Way I see it, if a significant percentage of PFS player base ends up throwing away characters, especially ones that have several years of gameplay under their belt, the reasons better be excellent.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the case of Fencing Grace, people were bragging on the forums that while Slashing Grace didn't work for magi anymore, Paizo never errata'd softcovers so MAGI FENCING GRACE MWHUHAHAHA.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Nerfing ALWAYS create frustration. Hopefully sometimes it can help achieve balance

There is no hope for this if, when looking at the myriad of options in the game, the most overpowered thing sticking up above the rest is the lore warden.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with this. Before the furor, I didn't know a thing about Lore Wardens, but then I'm not a big fan of CMB builds.

In terms of trivializing PFS scenario encounters, ranged damage, such as zen archers, musket masters, bolt aces, etc., seem to be the biggest problem to me (based, of course, on my somewhat limited experience). When I GM, I'm trying to be smart about how to reduce the thread to the baddies from these sorts of characters.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
In the case of Fencing Grace, people were bragging on the forums that while Slashing Grace didn't work for magi anymore, Paizo never errata'd softcovers so MAGI FENCING GRACE MWHUHAHAHA.

Reminds me of a greyhound we once had who would steal food off the kitchen counter and then come show us what she had taken.

3/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

pjrogers wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Okay, but which of these nerfs has achieved that? Which has even been a move in that direction?

Thats what changes the attitude from annoyed to frothing at the mouth. The actions are entirely arbitrary if thats the goal, and you're telling people with mid level optimization that they're dirty cheating power gamers but the gunslinger is just fine.

I believe the nerfing of the clear spindle ioun stone resonant power is one example of the move in that direction (and one of my PCs will take this hit, which is fine with me). I'd certainly be happy to see more. Zen archers are my current bete noire.*

And I'd agree that it does seem to be a very slow motion process, and I can understand how this can give rise to frustration.

*Semi-related question - Are there any PFS scenarios where the PCs face enemy zen archers?

Nope though there are multiple scenarios where you face something worst than a zen archer. It's why I find these conversations confusing because doing damage alone isn't overpowered in PFS. It's actually fairly risky.

Edit:
Wait the Gunslinger is overpowered?

The Exchange 3/5

No the gunslinger isn't overpowered. The musket master is just one of the last playable gunslingers after double-barreled options were effectively removed.

5/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I think the move away from public participation has deeper roots

When you account for both the amount of workforce involved in getting Starfinder off of the ground successfully, as well as the issues they've had with Pathfinder Online. Take into account other, smaller things which people tend to complain about, such as additional resources, and even the contents of this thread, and it tends to paint a picture. It makes sense that the first things that they would cut in order to balance the load would be projects like public playtests and RPG Superstar. While those most definitely provide a benefit, it's less tangible and direct of a benefit than creating new products and product lines.

RPG Superstar isn't just an investment in your own company, it's an investment in the health of the industry. One which may pay off wonderfully, or may not pay off at all, but tends to have decent returns in terms of community good will, at least for the first few rounds. It does however, take a lot of work to do. It makes sense to cut when either time or workforce fall short, so as to free up those resources for elsewhere.

Public Playtests require a lot of time and work invested in order to monitor the playtest and respond to feedback provided by the community, before we even get into moderating the response threads. All to get a relatively small boost in satisfaction for the given product. Certainly desirable when the opportunity is present, but if you don't have the time to dedicate to it, it makes sense to cut this as well and simply edit with past playtest responses in mind.

My theory is that there has been a somewhat gradual move away from public participation for a rather simple reason, Paizo simply does not have the time for it right now, what with other major products needing more attention. These things have been set down one at a time with the full intention of coming back to them when the time was right and they had the ability again. When you view it from this perspective, it's perfectly understandable.

I am hoping these things come back, and there is a slow but steady rebuilding of public participation once Starfinder is in full and regular production.

Who knows though, really. I could be missing the mark entirely.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Wait the Gunslinger is overpowered?

It's hard to judge. The class is one of those that really nudges into the "not fun for the DM" areas as it can sort of easily bypass much of what can normally make challenging encounters challenging and fun. The class, in the same sense of the strongest ranged characters, can easily trivialize many scenarios.

On the other side of the table though, the class is also one that can step on a lot of other character's toes, so to speak, because of the way that firearms work, (particularly with targeting Touch AC). It's not that the class is bad, per se, but that Gunslingers can very easily overshadow other characters just by being what they are, (as opposed to being particularly optimized).

So it's not really that it is OP/cheesy/broken, as much as the nature of the class tends to be too good in a way that overshadows others easily.

2/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Nope though there are multiple scenarios where you face something worst than a zen archer. It's why I find these conversations confusing because doing damage alone isn't overpowered in PFS. It's actually fairly risky.

That's not been the case in my limited experience. Almost every BBEG encounter that I've seen end in one or two rounds has been the result of massive ranged damage. This is from both the player and GM side of the table.

I'd love to know more about those scenarios described above.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
So it's not really that it is OP/cheesy/broken, as much as the nature of the class tends to be too good in a way that overshadows others easily.

It's definitely a balancing act. Targeting touch with Deadly Aim and Dex to damage make for large bursts of damage. I've seen numerous ways of handling the class to include the rest of the party, mostly involving not taking every attack the character possibly can. My Pistolero spent most of her last adventure taking just her BAB granted attacks, sometimes even just a single shot here and there. But when the dragon BBEG came out and there were allies taken hostage, that caution went out the window. The same for cyzzane's Musket Master. She let both barbarians deal with the melee threats, picking off distant targets we had yet to engage. At least until the final boss, when the GM told her to go ahead and open up. One full round action later, and we were batting cleanup.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
No the gunslinger isn't overpowered. The musket master is just one of the last playable gunslingers after double-barreled options were effectively removed.

<blink>

(Edit: meant in a joking way, as I had assumed the above provocative statement was partially meant in jest as well.)

Scarab Sages 5/5

TOZ wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
So it's not really that it is OP/cheesy/broken, as much as the nature of the class tends to be too good in a way that overshadows others easily.
It's definitely a balancing act. Targeting touch with Deadly Aim and Dex to damage make for large bursts of damage. I've seen numerous ways of handling the class to include the rest of the party, mostly involving not taking every attack the character possibly can. My Pistolero spent most of her last adventure taking just her BAB granted attacks, sometimes even just a single shot here and there. But when the dragon BBEG came out and there were allies taken hostage, that caution went out the window. The same for cyzzane's Musket Master. She let both barbarians deal with the melee threats, picking off distant targets we had yet to engage. At least until the final boss, when the GM told her to go ahead and open up. One full round action later, and we were batting cleanup.

There are other things you can do with the gunslinger that are pretty fun, that actually helps your allies shine.

Like Targeted Shot (shoot em in the head and confuse em, shoot em in the leg and trip em, shoot em in the arm and make em drop their weapon). Its a standard action, so you get one shot, and do damage once. But now the melee types get to have the glory. And, its a pretty slick thing to roleplay too!

The comment that the musket master is the last playable gunslinger boggles my mind though.

Silver Crusade

Rust Monsters. This is where Rust Monsters come in.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Fun fact, I managed to dominate the bloodrager in a high tier scenario and send him after the gunslinger. On her turn, she stepped back and targeted his arm to make him drop his weapon and prevent a full attack. Excellent use of class abilities!

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Ragoz wrote:
I realize you and I are never going to agree on anything but you can at least actually discuss something or say nothing at all rather than start what got the thread temporarily locked before.

Or you could just not engage. It does take two to tango.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
No the gunslinger isn't overpowered. The musket master is just one of the last playable gunslingers after double-barreled options were effectively removed.
<blink>
I realize you and I are never going to agree on anything but you can at least actually discuss something or say nothing at all rather than start what got the thread temporarily locked before.

Sorry, wasn't meaning that to be rude or dismissive. Rather was trying for levity. Sorry for failing on that. But you have to admit, your statement was pretty provocative.

I have pretty extensive experience with gunslingers of all stripes. From small sized pistoleros who use a single gun, to the blunderbuss type. With a bunch of musket masters (including my own) throw into the mix.

I'm currently playing a Buccaneer (human gunslinger archetype from ARG) in my friends home game of Skulls & Shackles as well.

Double barrel stuff was not necessary for each and every one of them to be highly effective and successful.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kalindlara wrote:

This is, I think, the biggest misconception I see throughout all of this. Almost everyone seems to speak as if the developers said "Okay, we're going to set aside page space in here to nerf one single overpowered thing. Lore warden it is!"

Correction, people embracing the change are acting as though that's the process. If the process is re writing things without respect to power level? Thats not going to balance the game at all.

Quote:
A far more likely series of events:

Hold on, you forgot the entire reason why people are ticked..

-and then lets take the other option away from people in pfs.

The Exchange 3/5

The change had enough impact that I haven't seen a gunslinger besides musket master since then and even the ones I did see probably under-performed from lack of reliable/greater reliable on their weapon.

During the first 10-11 tier special at gencon I played with a 2-handed falchion bloodrager and during the second I played with a musket master. I don't know the full extent of their characters but I can confidently claim the regular 2-handed attacking character outperformed the other.

I've also looked into gunslinger options since the changes and never felt I could be as effective as I wanted. I don't feel they are as viable as a musket master which I don't believe even outperforms a person with a strength score and 2-handed power attacking.

Can people make a character who will work despite all this? Sure. It just won't perform at the same level as core rulebook options.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:

The change had enough impact that I haven't seen a gunslinger besides musket master since then and even the ones I did see probably under-performed from lack of reliable/greater reliable on their weapon.

During the first 10-11 tier special at gencon I played with a 2-handed falchion bloodrager and during the second I played with a musket master. I don't know the full extent of their characters but I can confidently claim the regular 2-handed attacking character outperformed the other.

I've also looked into gunslinger options since the changes and never felt I could be as effective as I wanted. I don't feel they are as viable as a musket master which I don't believe even outperforms a person with a strength score and 2-handed power attacking.

Can people make a character who will work despite all this? Sure. It just won't perform at the same level as core rulebook options.

This we will likely not agree on.

However, "...not(sic) as viable as a musket master..." does not equal, "not viable."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is part of why I have yet to get into PFS. I rollplay. I've been near campaigns where my reaction prompted another to tell me that I shouldn't be there and should stick to vidgames (I was not in said campaign only serendipitously). I see hate being thrown around for what I believe to be perfectly sensible courses of action, like stockpiling or grinding to play at higher levels.

I'll just go back to my plotless campaign that only runs 2 weeks a year. At least there I have nothing to fear.

Scarab Sages 5/5

The Sideromancer wrote:

This is part of why I have yet to get into PFS. I rollplay. I've been near campaigns where my reaction prompted another to tell me that I shouldn't be there and should stick to vidgames (I was not in said campaign only serendipitously). I see hate being thrown around for what I believe to be perfectly sensible courses of action, like stockpiling or grinding to play at higher levels.

I'll just go back to my plotless campaign that only runs 2 weeks a year. At least there I have nothing to fear.

Everyone plays the game in their own style and in their own way. No particular style is wrong. I've been at fault for throwing hate on this particular style before. But not because I think its badwrongfun.

Rather, because if you are at a table with a GM and other players who play with a highly contrasting style, it becomes not fun for them. The same, as if you were at a table of people who just wanted to talk to everything and not worry about mechanics would probably drive you nuts.

So is your style wrong? Not if considered in a vacuum, or if you are at a table of like-minded players/GM. But if you are at a table of people who don't want to play that way, it certainly can be wrong.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic

The Sideromancer wrote:

This is part of why I have yet to get into PFS. I rollplay. I've been near campaigns where my reaction prompted another to tell me that I shouldn't be there and should stick to vidgames (I was not in said campaign only serendipitously). I see hate being thrown around for what I believe to be perfectly sensible courses of action, like stockpiling or grinding to play at higher levels.

I'll just go back to my plotless campaign that only runs 2 weeks a year. At least there I have nothing to fear.

I think you mean roleplay.

I always make the following distinction:

Roleplay : Pretending to be characters in a fantasy world and going on adventure. Story is very important.
Rollplay : Rolling dice to kill imaginary monsters. Combat is life!
Ruleplay : Trying to find hidden treasures in the rulebooks. Endlessly discussing RAW vs RAI.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auke Teeninga wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:

This is part of why I have yet to get into PFS. I rollplay. I've been near campaigns where my reaction prompted another to tell me that I shouldn't be there and should stick to vidgames (I was not in said campaign only serendipitously). I see hate being thrown around for what I believe to be perfectly sensible courses of action, like stockpiling or grinding to play at higher levels.

I'll just go back to my plotless campaign that only runs 2 weeks a year. At least there I have nothing to fear.

I think you mean roleplay.

I always make the following distinction:

Roleplay : Pretending to be characters in a fantasy world and going on adventure. Story is very important.
Rollplay : Rolling dice to kill imaginary monsters. Combat is life!
Ruleplay : Trying to find hidden treasures in the rulebooks. Endlessly discussing RAW vs RAI.

By your definitions, I mean Ruleplay.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
While I feel like it wasn't done simply to nerf the option, but bring it more in line with other similar options, that seems to be exactly what happened with Fencing Grace being included in Ultimate Intrigue. It's not a compendium style book like ultimate equipment or the adventurers guide, so there really wasn't much reason to include it except to have the wording of the feat changed.

Fencing Grace, in fact, appears to be the perfect example of what people are assuming happened. Included first to correct, second for theme.

3/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Ragoz wrote:
No the gunslinger isn't overpowered. The musket master is just one of the last playable gunslingers after double-barreled options were effectively removed.

Wait what the hell? That's exactly one of the builds I've been thinking of making.

Rapid Shot Pistol-> Standard Fire Move Reload->Repeat
Perfectly rules legal and allowed in the additional resources.
EDIT:
And don't ask me why they remade it rules legal but the major difference is the weapons are slightly weaker?
pjrogers wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Nope though there are multiple scenarios where you face something worst than a zen archer. It's why I find these conversations confusing because doing damage alone isn't overpowered in PFS. It's actually fairly risky.

That's not been the case in my limited experience. Almost every BBEG encounter that I've seen end in one or two rounds has been the result of massive ranged damage. This is from both the player and GM side of the table.

I'd love to know more about those scenarios described above.

Well I didn't say that it still wasn't ranged. Its just that no one ever talks about the Alchemist and those can dominate every single aspect of a scenario. I remember walking into a battle with an alchemist and used spells to buff myself. Completely forgot that haste works on them and that their bombs are the most versatile projectile weapon in the game.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The characters I've found I've had the most fun with are the most versatile. Maybe they don't get hit as hard with nerfs, but there are plenty that have hit my PCs. However, the change to lore warden is drastic, even for my rogue that dipped 2 levels of it.

The Exchange 3/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Wait what the hell? That's exactly one of the builds I've been thinking of making.

Rapid Shot Pistol-> Standard Fire Move Reload->Repeat
Perfectly rules legal and allowed in the additional resources.

You can't rapid shot and also fire both barrels of a double-barreled pistol at once because rapid is made as part of a full-attack and double-barreled attacking at once is the attack action.

I'm not sure what your edit question means but the items and features are allowed by additional resources. The errata to the weapons mean you do less attacks per full-attack than you would have prior to the change.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

That's why you rapid shot with one shot per barrel. Can't reload with a move action, but that's just weighing the cost of alchemical cartridges versus move actions.

3/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Ragoz wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:

Wait what the hell? That's exactly one of the builds I've been thinking of making.

Rapid Shot Pistol-> Standard Fire Move Reload->Repeat
Perfectly rules legal and allowed in the additional resources.

You can't rapid shot and also fire both barrels of a double-barreled pistol at once because rapid is made as part of a full-attack and double-barreled attacking at once is a standard action.

I'm not sure what your edit question means but the items and features are allowed by additional resources. The errata to the weapons mean you do less attacks per full-attack than you would have prior to the change.

Im talking about the Dragoon guns which people were saying was too good? and was going to be banned. You can rapid shot those til the cows come home.

1/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Ragoz wrote:


You can't rapid shot and also fire both barrels of a double-barreled pistol at once because rapid is made as part of a full-attack and double-barreled attacking at once is a standard action.

I'm not sure what your edit question means but the items and features are allowed by additional resources. The errata to the weapons mean you do less attacks per full-attack than you would have prior to the change.

Im talking about the Dragoon guns which people were saying was too good? and was going to be banned. You can rapid shot those til the cows come home.

A couple points:

1) Dragoon firearms are distinct from the double-barreled firearms originally mentioned.
2) If by "til the cows come home" you mean "for maybe 1 full round every other round", then yes. 3-shot clips.
3) Are you talking Rapid Shot (the feat), or rapidly shooting (normal attacks as per BAB)? Because Rapid Shot (the feat) requires a full-attack action, meaning you have no Move action left with which to reload. You'd have to reload on your next turn.

The Exchange 3/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:

Wait what the hell? That's exactly one of the builds I've been thinking of making.

Rapid Shot Pistol-> Standard Fire Move Reload->Repeat
Perfectly rules legal and allowed in the additional resources.

You can't rapid shot and also fire both barrels of a double-barreled pistol at once because rapid is made as part of a full-attack and double-barreled attacking at once is a standard action.

I'm not sure what your edit question means but the items and features are allowed by additional resources. The errata to the weapons mean you do less attacks per full-attack than you would have prior to the change.

Im talking about the Dragoon guns which people were saying was too good? and was going to be banned. You can rapid shot those til the cows come home.

Oh the scatter property. Certainly good. My friend had a gun scavenger who had a bunch of double-barreled weapons and would misfire them between combats to apply the scatter property to each of them. Pretty terrifying. As for it being discussed for banning.. what isn't on the chopping block as far as I know.

Sorry Toz, I don't know if you mean take additional rapid shot attacks per barrel or are agreeing gunslingers do half as many attacks as they use to pre-errata. You only make one rapid shot per full-attack of course.

3/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

shaventalz wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Ragoz wrote:


You can't rapid shot and also fire both barrels of a double-barreled pistol at once because rapid is made as part of a full-attack and double-barreled attacking at once is a standard action.

I'm not sure what your edit question means but the items and features are allowed by additional resources. The errata to the weapons mean you do less attacks per full-attack than you would have prior to the change.

Im talking about the Dragoon guns which people were saying was too good? and was going to be banned. You can rapid shot those til the cows come home.

A couple points:

1) Dragoon firearms are distinct from the double-barreled firearms originally mentioned.
2) If by "til the cows come home" you mean "for maybe 1 full round every other round", then yes. 3-shot clips.
3) Are you talking Rapid Shot (the feat), or rapidly shooting (normal attacks as per BAB)? Because Rapid Shot (the feat) requires a full-attack action, meaning you have no Move action left with which to reload. You'd have to reload on your next turn.

No the original point was that they nerfed firearms into oblivion because you couldn't rapid shot them. The question marks were primarily because I always thought the gunslinger was a bad class where you had to jump through ridiculous hurdles to get decent damage off of and resulted in the most goofiest and hilariously bad rational for errata I have ever seen.

1/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
shaventalz wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Ragoz wrote:


You can't rapid shot and also fire both barrels of a double-barreled pistol at once because rapid is made as part of a full-attack and double-barreled attacking at once is a standard action.

I'm not sure what your edit question means but the items and features are allowed by additional resources. The errata to the weapons mean you do less attacks per full-attack than you would have prior to the change.

Im talking about the Dragoon guns which people were saying was too good? and was going to be banned. You can rapid shot those til the cows come home.

A couple points:

1) Dragoon firearms are distinct from the double-barreled firearms originally mentioned.
2) If by "til the cows come home" you mean "for maybe 1 full round every other round", then yes. 3-shot clips.
3) Are you talking Rapid Shot (the feat), or rapidly shooting (normal attacks as per BAB)? Because Rapid Shot (the feat) requires a full-attack action, meaning you have no Move action left with which to reload. You'd have to reload on your next turn.
No the original point was that they nerfed firearms into oblivion because you couldn't rapid shot them. The question marks were primarily because I always thought the gunslinger was a bad class where you had to jump through ridiculous hurdles to get decent damage off of and resulted in the most goofiest and hilariously bad rational for errata I have ever seen.

Where was this ever stated/errata'd/FAQ'd/clarified?

Because my Musket Master (single barrel) would certainly like to know. In fact, this FAQ all but states that Rapid Shot (the feat) is perfectly usable on a firearm.

And I'm honestly not sure what weapon you're even talking about now - a Dragoon weapon, a Dragon pistol, or a Double-barreled weapon.

Shadow Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Mekkis wrote:
I would rather give one hundred characters free rebuilds based on a shaky premise than leave one character worse off due to changes adversely affecting the character.

Because you wouldn't abuse them. If everyone was like that, we would have fewer problems in the campaign.

Do you honestly think that a person who's going to abuse a "free rebuild" is going to care about whether the "free rebuild" is actually legal? It's nigh impossible to prove that a player has rebuilt their character between sessions anyway. If this much abuse is really going to happen, it's already happening.

Pathfinder Society is already based on the assumption that people aren't going to be jerks.

Curaigh wrote:
In my experience, a character who is that adversely affected by a ruling change, is not that fun to play with. (Please note 'character' not 'player' :) Even honest players making an honest character using a unbalanced/broken/oversight rule, manages to upset the rest of the game's balance. That affects the rest of the table's builds (and--in my opinion--fun).

I don't disagree that some character types that have been later disallowed were not fun to play with. I built a Synthesist Summoner at the onset of Season Three, and was very glad when they disallowed the archetype and gave me the opportunity to rebuild him into someone who I could have more fun playing.

Disallowing or modifying archetypes that break the game is not a bad thing. It takes balls to admit that you made a mistake.

However, I don't believe that forcing players to continue to play a character they don't like is conducive to good management. Either allow them to continue to play the character unmodified (grandfathering), or be lenient with rebuilding so the player isn't left paying for your mistake.

This.

That said, I think the other important thing to recognize from the OP's original post is the role those of us here play in all this and our relation to both the tables and the dev teams. Those of us who have to carry this news to the players bare the brunt of this disaffection and resentment and are usually looked at as the bad guys for our role in it and are faced with the uncomfortable choice of shouldering that burden and potentially other consequences (including stopping a game to help them rebuild the thing right there to mend fences) or doing nothing and kicking the can on to whoever is unfortunate enough to have to deal with it later (up to and including potentially having to have them bounce from a table at a convention or run a pregen at a big event like the Gencon Specials rather than the character they spent all year prepping for it).

Being treated as some sort of annoying minority that can be dismissed or should be ignored without recognizing our important contextual role in disseminating their changes is a dangerous position to take, as it leads to more negative feedback in the form of many of us potentially leaving the organizations for greener pastures after having to watch the 30th new kid have to get her cool idea snapped in half and nerfed to hell or told she can't play it because this strangers says she did it wrong even if she followed the rules in the Core Rulebook. And when people like us who devote the time to learning this stuff are removed from that environment Paizo loses one of the most effective mechanisms that Paizo has for delivering their changes to their players.

451 to 500 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher? All Messageboards